00:00]
Robert: [inaudible].
Interviewer:
I am here today with Robert Green. It is the 16th of January 2015 [?] Central Station
in a local custody ahh so the next person you hear will be Robert. Robert,
generally how is your condition? How are you feeling?
Robert:
Well I am feeling in pretty good spirits actually, which is my normal,
hopefully, default way.
Interviewer:
Yeah.
Robert:
I was disappointed by the way things went on Tuesday because virtually
everything we had hope for did not come off.
Interviewer:
Yeah.
Robert:
But that’s the way of things and I have take it philosophically and
realistically which is exactly what I am doing.
Interviewer:
Yeah and telling yourself you are okay. You don’t have any, you’re gonna
continue, keep the faith for that.
Robert:
Well yes. Well, the point is now that, to a certain extent, what I campaign for
has come about now and despite the fact the opposition, the SNP government, and
I have to say great credit to Scottish labor. This is not a police clothes.
Interviewer:
No.
Robert:
It's the last [inaudible] trying to this.
Interviewer:
It was this sort of strange thing-- that whole thing.
Robert:
Yes. I think we should thank very much a grand PS [inaudible] the former
justice spokesman from Scottish labor because it was his courage and
determination that forced the SNP government to actually instigate the, the
review-- it starts actually few cases.
Interviewer:
Yeah, and do you think that include [inaudible]?
Robert:
I think it has to because I don’t, it can’t possibly be a case in which there
is more evidence supporting the victim and of course the victim she is. The
police have described DI [inaudible] and in ally and his colleagues described
Hollie in writing as a truthful witness and entirely innocent victim and that
is supported by all the experts who have examined, who actually personally
examined.
Interviewer:
Yeah and in terms of the expert witnesses like Jack Boyle you don’t have any
doubts about the validity of they are.
Robert:
Well how could there be, how could there be. Dr. Jack was also the eminent
specialist in Scotland, Dr. Rivaldy too.
Interviewer:
Did you not see that Boyle was surprised they never got a call from Grampian
police?
Robert:
No, it was Dr. Carter.
Interviewer:
Carter, yes, and he is surprised. Did you not see that he was surprised they
never got a call from the police after?
Robert:
He was shocked until he got in to the police because we found his report in the
middle of the supposed thorough investigation that the police claimed which was
nothing of the kind of course and this should only a valid to the evidence
because it goes back to 1990 and obviously should have alerted the police to
the potential seriousness of it.
Interviewer:
Yeah.
Robert:
As I would say about it, [inaudible] is guilting to they flipping
investigated. Yeah anybody [inaudible] will be found innocent [inaudible]. All
I am saying is the police did not conduct an adequate investigation based on
the tremendously powerful, independent, expert witness evidence presented to.
Interviewer:
So in the essence, what we have here is the girl is abused.
Robert:
Yes.
Interviewer:
The evidence says, yes she was abused.
Robert:
Yes.
Interviewer:
She had been paid by the criminal and she.discovered [inaudible]
Robert:
Correct.
Interviewer:
She said the same names were the [inaudible] of them, of the same men.
Robert:
Yes, yes she has been consistent.
Interviewer:
And both in the present of another--
Robert:
With the presence of the police as I was a witness to.
Interviewer:
You were, a witness to that [crosstalk]
Robert:
Yes on the 8th of September 2009, yes.
Interviewer:
You even in room next door.
Robert:
Yes I was.
Interviewer:
In a safe house?
Robert:
Yes in Shrewsbury yes.
Interviewer:
And that is how you [inaudible] the hidden, you were in the police station--
Robert:
No, no because it is a sexual abuse case. They tend to take victims or alleged
victim we'll say to a house where it seems a bit more easy for them because the
police can commit a bit daunting for a person who suffered enormously and it
has of course.
Interviewer:
And the names that she recounted into the police?
Robert:
Yes.
Interviewer:
Which you were witnessed to but not let police enter the room. She hep through
the--
Robert:
Yeah, oh no, haven't before
Interviewer:
Obviously the same names [crosstalk]
Robert:
Oh absolutely and I think people should say even just a very flimsy catch from
the kitchen and the dining area and of course, because of Hollie’s hearing
difficulties, she speaks at a very high decibel level. So as I am speaking to
you, I could almost hear Hollie as well as I am
speaking to you just a few feet away because she speaks very loudly.
Interviewer:
You didn’t have any problem packing up the names because I think when the
program that was televised, people find it difficult to understand that, that
the time--
Robert:
Well, I think they would. If you don't use because I am used to listening to
Hollie. I am used to listening to her. But if there is any-- but of course, we
did find the document later from Nicholas Smith, a neighbor, I'm not a charge
of charity in which he had said Hollie, because of her speech difficulties,
Hollie should have had an expert present to help her with her speech
difficulties.
Interviewer:
Yes, so she said something that keep quiet of it without live on.
Robert:
Yes. The police have failed to do that in 2000 when Hollie had first made her
allegations. So if the police have been warned by an acknowledged expert from
the most respected charity for disable in Scotland, that is what Hollie should
have been provided with at the interview. Then how was it in 2009 that the
police still failed to have someone that would’ve help.
Interviewer:
In terms of an-- influence Hollie, you have never really found that have you?
Robert:
No, no not at all. I have heard Hollie on road, on a home, and of course that
couldn't infrequently interview to place you should be and be interviewed by
[inaudible] upstairs in the room, in the room was DC Lisa Jane Evans of
Grampian Police was conducting the interview sitting behind them were a
social worker from Shropshire and also another West Mercia, they both all
women police officers and me. There was just Hollie through then four people
who could be.
Interviewer:
and you could be in the room next to [crosstalk]
Robert:
That is correct. That is correct.
Interviewer:
In terms of the case in general, have you ever had any doubts about the
validity or more concerned about the lack of investigation?
Robert:
It’s the lack of investigation but also of course, one has to say and I have
said this many times, I say it again, my opinion does not count for anything.
Throughout the campaign, I have relied totally on the evidence of the
expert witness evidence. I don’t have any legal training. I don’t have any
evidence on the psychanics, psychologist. I have no experience about people
with down syndrome. I’m not a medical expert physically, I have no expert. I
have just gone on the people who are trustworthy or acknowledged experts like
Dr. Jack Boyle, Dr. Eva Harding, Dr. Paul Carter, Dr. Frances Kelly, the
forensic medical officer at Grampian Police, police officers IA Alley, and the
scene- the panel of the criminal compensation board and also Susannah Seymann
and Ruth Beckmann of the Down Syndrome Association, so all of those people have
totally supported Hollie. It is not what I think. I don’t know one way or the
other. I am just looking at the evidence as anybody else and shouldn't have the
cold shoulders.
Interviewer:
Do you feel that, in essence, people have said that you have been a legal
representative things or that to perhaps color the few--
Robert:
Well, I am not a legal representative. I am not qualified. I'm just here to
have- to help.
Interviewer:
Do you think people have done that deliberately to might be made it to work
out.
Robert:
I don’t know why people do certain things. All I am asking it’s nothing to do
with me, just look at the evidence. Look at the evidence from all the people I
have mentioned. It doesn’t matter what I think. It doesn’t matter at all. I
mean the only relevance I have to guess is that I actually didn’t witness the
interview with the police.
Interviewer:
And it has not-- it has really been a linchpin for thickness forward when
they didn’t investigate after that.
Robert:
Well of course because the evidence was so overwhelming. That's--
Interviewer:
We should understand why [crosstalk]
Robert:
There is no reason why they wouldn’t. There is absolutely--
Interviewer:
It's not really- it motivated you to go on as far as you have.
Robert:
Well yes, because quite clearly as, as we mentioned, there might be no one
[inaudible] we designed for having nominated for the 2015 Nobel Peace prize for
my work in this case and the author of it, whose name I do not know who is a
parliamentarian, said that one of the part-- the things is that as if Hollie has been telling
the truth and she is described by the police and all the experts as a truthful
for witness, then count this children in the upper [inaudible] pass beyond,
[inaudible] size Scotland may be at risk, that is all there risk, but that doesn’t
mean the people are guilty at all. They could be all find innocent. And if that
would be indication of the police who conducted an adequate investigation, then
I would have gone away right from the start. What we talked to everybody, or
like computers. For whatever reason, we can’t pursue this. I said, okay it
sounds a bit, you know, the evidence seems strong but you are the police, you
have done the job. That’s it, I can’t do anything more about it.
Interviewer:
They said anything you have done definitely a campaign up to now because have
been doing that for quite a long time. is there anything you wouldn’t have
done? Is there anything?
Robert:
Not really. I mean I have to make a lot of decision for this [inaudible]. There
is nothing obvious that I would say that I would’ve done differently.
Interviewer:
Would you maybe not off-handed the leaflets to [inaudible] typical and they
know what you have done. You know obviously, great minds would continuous to
name people and in breach of the law, Scots law and he has not been
arrested.
Robert:
Yes, well this has passed because especially everything that thrown at you.
Interviewer:
So in terms of that, that does not surprise you that he hasn’t been arrested?
Robert:
Well it doesn’t surprise me, I mean because we are not talking about justice,
not about the law, but…
Interviewer:
No, but it seems like the Scottish government say they can pack you up in
England because something is said in England.
Robert:
Yes, yes that is right.
Interviewer:
They discrete one is what cannot be touched, yet [inaudible] people. Does that
not seem in congress?
Robert:
It seems in congress but a lot of things about this case or congress are
utterly irrational.
Interviewer:
Yes.
Robert:
There is no rationale with the police not interviewing people.
Interviewer:
Just going back. If you could go back five years and not wait to the people
infinite and just name the father and son, would you might be consider that?
Robert:
Ooh ah it is difficult one to say.
Interviewer:
Because you could be [inaudible] protection?
Robert:
No, but it is a difficult one to say because obviously, I would look at
people viewing this if there was someone who was a danger to children or
potential danger living next door to you and the police said it was Jimmy
Savile or Sarah Smith and the police said never investigate. You’ve got
children living next door, would you not be, you know, and the police had
failed in that. And they are just like 'don't question around.' it's the police
failure, this is it to do more or less.
Interviewer:
Do you think that view has been directed from above?
Robert:
Well.
Interviewer:
You don’t think it is a systematic failure. You do not think it is a
politically motivated failure.
Robert:
It is difficult to know for sure. What we do know is Alex Salmond has broken
the law, 101 and 2)11 of the Freedom of Information Scotland Act, this was the
information they said [inaudible] commission made that ruling on 26th of May
2011. On the 11th of July 2011, the entire Scottish government as Mr. Salmond
and his Mrs. came within 24 hours facing contempt of court.
Interviewer:
Right.
Robert:
Right? For their failures.
Interviewer:
And how could we get away with that.
Robert:
Because the press would not report it and I can tell you now that two editors
whom I have spoken to have been threatened by Mr. Salmond’s lawyers.
Interviewer:
Who are?
Robert:
Who are Levy and McRae.
Interviewer:
Who uh who was run by?
Robert:
Professor Peter Watson, who is no longer an instant part of the firm.
Interviewer:
I see. And do you feel that that has been part of his goal to stop that note?
Robert:
Yes, yes and I do know, I think we have to trust this way just to get the
evidence about Hollie’s case, why has that not been, why are those Scottish
people being so [crosstalk]
Interviewer:
So looking at the way, that picture, would you seem as-- [end]
